International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No.

3 March 2014

A Match or Mismatch between Learning and Teaching Styles in

Science Education

Corresponding Author: Angela Abu-Asba

English Department
Faculty of Languages, Sana’a University,Yemen
Angelaabuasba2012@gmail.com

Hazita Azman
School of Language Studies and Linguistics
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
hazita@ukm.my

Rosniah Mustaffa
School of Language Studies and Linguistics
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
rosniah@ukm.my

Abstract
Mixed research method was used in this study to investigate and compare the learning styles of science students and the
lecturer’s teaching styles in Yemen. Quantitative data were collected from 179 students using a survey questionnaire
while qualitative data were collected from 50 lecturers using observation checklist and videotaped classroom sessions.
The quantitative data were coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics via SPSS software while observation and
videotaped classroom sessions were used to triangulate the results. Research findings showed that the auditory and
visual styles were more prevalent among the lecturers who adopted mainly lecturer-fronted, chalk-and-talk teaching
approach while the students preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles which were supported by previous literature
to be more suited for science classes. The result explicitly highlighted the implications of teaching science in tertiary
institutions in Yemen.

Keywords: Learning styles, Teaching style, Science education, Science lecturers and students, Science teaching and
learning.

1
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

1. Introduction
The Arab and Muslim scholars have played very important role in hastening the world scientific renaissance (Woods
2004). They translated the heritage of the Greek culture which gave to their exploitation of human cognition in different
areas. The Arabs continued the effort of acquiring human knowledge until it expanded and achieved a remarkable zenith
between 900-1200 A.D. During this period, Muslims made significant progress and exceptional achievements in
different fields such as medicine, scientific agriculture, botany, mathematics, chemistry, and optics. Works of Muslim
scholars such as Ibnul Haitham (on Optics) were translated and transported from Spain to the rest of Europe. According
to Woods (2004:5), in the last millennium, the Muslims were the great torchbearers of international scientific research.
Every student and professional from each country outside the Islamic Empire aspired, yearned, and dreamed to go to
Islamic universities to learn, to work, to live and to lead a comfortable life in an affluent and most advanced and
civilized society.
The Islamic scientific invention started to wane due to the slowing down of broader Islamic scientific study, which has
been ascribed by many scholars to the “end of the Muslim mind” (Razak & Abdul Majeed 1998:7). It was noted that
most universities and technical schools in the Arab world adopt an approach in which teachers is viewed as the core of
the teaching and learning process (Badran 2003). However, there is little support for science education at all levels in
the Arab world (Segal 1996 & Castillo 2004).
Mahyoub (1996) and Nour (2003) admitted that the teaching and learning of science in Yemen was unsatisfactory and
lagged behind to meet the current standards of teaching and learning modern science. Angela Abu-Asba, Hazita
Azman, Rosniah Mustaffa (2012) emphasized that the whole process was insufficient in leading progress and
development in the country. The study added that students learn science in order to gain and acquire facts but apparently
not for the purpose of applying scientific knowledge. Mahyoub (1996) claimed that Yemeni science students have little
knowledge in learning and application science and found their ability to comprehend scientific knowledge as
unsatisfactory. Mahyoub (1996) critiqued the overemphasis on teacher-centered approaches and educational activities,
claiming that it neglected the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, capability of inquiry and investigative
skills which are characteristics of most trained scientists. Lecturers knows that students learn in different ways in the
classroom and this have been confirmed by everyday experience. Thus, students learn in many ways through seeing
and hearing; reflecting and acting; reasoning logically and intuitively; memorizing and visualizing, according to Reid
(1984) Korean, Chinese and Japanese students are all visual learners. They prefer to read and obtain a great deal of
visual stimulation. Moreover, teaching methods also vary as some instructors lectures, others demonstrate or discusses;
some of them focus on rules and others on examples, some emphasize memory and others understanding (Felder,
1995:21). Tabatabaei and Mashayekhi (2013: 245) stated that “the teacher should know that everyone has natural
strengths and abilities to perform well in some specific fields.
Research on teaching and learning styles is under-researched in ESL, EFL and in science education Gilakjani (2012).
According to Gilakjani (2012:54), one of the weaknesses of the research in LS is the lack of investigating matching of
teaching and learning styles. Though there are many variables in the educational literature, limited research has dealt
with the matching of teaching styles and learning styles. One of the primary aims of this study was to construct the
matching between the students’ learning styles and the instructors’ teaching styles feasible in real-life classroom
teaching in the Faculty of Science, Sana’a University, Yemen. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the students’
learning style and lecturers’ teaching styles; and whether the lecturers’ teaching style fits with the students’ learning
styles.

2. Literature review
Many authors have done research on teaching and learning styles such as Aguirre (2005) Zhang (2007), Quiamzade and
Mugny (2009), Naimie, Siraj, Piaw, shagholi, and Abuzaid (2010), Dinçol, Temel, Oskay, Erdo, lmaz (2011), Hsieh ,
Jang , Hwang , Chen (2011), Gilakjani (2012); Dunn & Dunn, 1993; Felder, 1995; Felder, Felder, & Dietz, 2002;
Gardner, 1983; Gringerenko & Sternberg, 1995; Honey & Mumford,1992; Kinsella, 1996; Kolb, 1984; Mattews, 1991;
Murray-Harvey, 1994; Oxford & Ehrman, 1993; Oxford et al., 1992; Peacock, 2001; Rayner & Riding, 1997; Reid,
1995; Riding & Douglas, 1993; Sims & Sims, 1995; and, Zhenhui, 2001. There has been scanty research on learning
and teaching styles in Yemen with regard to science domain; therefore, publications are limited.
Rita Dunn in 1960 firstly puts forward the concept of learning styles and Grasha in (1996) stated that learning style
depicted student’s personal ability to acquire information together with the learning experiences. According to Kolb

2
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No. 3 March 2014

(1984), learning style means the ways a person prefers to acquire and process information. Some researchers believe
that students’ learning styles related to their teachers’ teaching styles (Rahimi and Asadollahi, 2012).
Artvinli (2010) defined teaching styles as the leading factors that shape and assure the success of a highly complex
teaching-learning process. Grasha (2002) defined teaching style as the continuous and consistent behaviors of lecturers
in their interactions with students during the teaching-learning process. Kuchinskas (1979) pointed out in a study that
the instructor’s teaching style is one of the most important factors that influence the learning environment. Matching
and mismatching between teaching and learning styles existed in an academic setting. A mismatch is occurred when
students’ preferred methods of processing information are not aligned with the lecturers’ preferred styles of teaching
(Naimie, Siraj, Piaw, shagholi, and Abuzaid (2010)). This can lead to poor performance because they may become
bored and demoralized to students as reported by Felder (1988).
According to Hsieh, Jang, Hwang, Chen (2011), Zhang (2007), Felder (1995), and Reid (1987), mismatch existed
between learning styles of students in a class and the teaching style of the instructor with the potential consequence.
Arabic learners in general and Yemenis in particular come from a variety of family, social, and ethnic backgrounds, the
Arabic students are growing up in a paternalistic society which is a factor that helps determine their behavioral
characteristics. Arab World tends to be conservative hierarchical and family centered; the individual tends to be
regarded as part of a class, rather than as a separate entity. Hence, the family is the basic building block of Middle East
in general and Yemenis in particular.
As an outcome of the clash between the learning style and teaching style in the class; students tend to be tired and
inattentive in class, do poorly on tests, get discouraged about the course, and may conclude that they are no good at the
subject of the course and quit (Felder & Spurlin 2005). Whereas, instructors from the other side, confronted by low test
grades, unresponsive or hostile classes, poor attendance, and dropouts, may become overly critical of their students or
begin to interrogate their own competence as lecturers (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Oxford, 1991).
Felder (1993) cited Sheila Tobias (1993) who defined the existence of two tiers of entering college students comprising;
1) those pursuing science degrees and 2) those with the ability and potential to switch to nonscientific fields. Tobias
identified that students manifests different learning styles. Students, whose learning styles matches with the teaching
style of the lecturer/lecturer retain information longer and are able to apply it more effectively. These student have
favorable perceptions and attitudes towards their courses than those who experience learning/teaching style mismatches.
They concluded that if educational institutions give out to adapt and address matching of teaching and learning styles,
adverse effects will be manifested in the performance and output of the students
2.1 Previous studies on teaching and learning styles
There are numerous studies on the match and mismatch between the learning and teaching styles in Europe, Asia and
North America in the field of ESL, EFL and science domain (Gilakjani 2012) however; there are relatively few in the
Arab world specifically in the science domain. Research on learning and teaching styles has provided lecturers and
students with a different view of learning and teaching within the classrooms.
A number of authors proposed that mismatches often occur and have bad effects on students' learning and attitude in
class and to English (e.g. Reid, 1987; Cortazzi, 1990; Felder, 1995; Jones, 1997; & Littlewood, Liu, & Yu, 1996).
Felder elaborated that students become bored and may quit the class. Many have also claimed that matching teaching
and learning style improves learning, attitudes, behavior, and motivation (Willing, 1988; Felder, 1995; Reid, 1987;
1995; & Kinsella, 1995).
Reid (1996) adds that matching teaching style with learning style gives all learners an equal chance in the classroom,
and builds student self-awareness. On a method for overcoming the mismatch is a balanced teaching style (Felder
1995); meaning lecturers should try to accommodate all learning styles (Reid, 1987; Melton, 1990; Felder, 1995;
Oxford, 1995; Kroonenberg, 1995). Willing (1988) asserted that lecturers should do this even if it conflicts with their
idea of what is effective in the class. Ehrman (1996) suggested that gradually "build(ing) as an increased array of
options" for class and homework, and Kinsella (1995) "a deliberate multisensory approach". Willing (1988) warns,
though, that we must also respect lecturers1 styles, because adopting an unfamiliar style reduces effectiveness. The
consensus is that when student and lecturer styles are better matched, students are likely to work harder both in and
outside the classroom.
Felder and Silverman (1988) conducted a study indicating that there existed mismatches between the students’ learning
styles and the lecturers’ teaching style in class. Their study which conducted in North Carolina State University among
undergraduate engineering students found that learning styles of most engineering students and teaching styles of most
engineering professors are incompatible in several dimensions. The findings released that most engineering students are
3
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

visual, sensing, inductive, and active, and some of the most creative students are global; most engineering education is
auditory, abstract (intuitive), deductive, passive, and sequential.
Merrifield (1996) conducted a study to identify and develop insights into the characteristics of French cultural learning
style by examining the language learning strategies that learners use to improve their progress. SILL (The Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning) developed by Oxford (1991) was used. The Findings indicated that French learners
were more visually-oriented than auditory, tactile or kinesthetic. The findings also depicted that culture potentially
influences learners’ preferences, learning styles of learners from different ethnic backgrounds.
Zhang in (2007) examined the issue of lecturer–student style match among 254 students from a university in Shanghai.
Results indicated that although students preferred teaching styles that matched their career personality types precisely,
they were also exposed to teaching styles that complemented their career personality types. The findings of the study by
Zhang (2007) and Zhang’s (2004b) and other existing findings regarding the impact of style match/mismatch upon
teaching and learning, suggested that ‘‘style match’’ is not always ideal. Such a conclusive remark should have
implications for both research and teaching.
Guadalupe, Castaneda, Juris (2007) explored the students’ learning styles and the teachers’ teaching styles and whether
the teacher’s teaching style fits with the students’ learning styles. There were 32 students studying English their teacher.
According to the findings, tactile, auditory, kinesthetic learning styles were observed, and there was a match between
teaching and learning styles. On the other hand, the findings of the most representative teachers’ teaching styles were
the visual, then the tactile and kinesthetic, then the group and individual and the least representative was the auditory.
Another study by Naimie, Siraj, Piaw, shagholi, and Abuzaid (2010) explored the impact of teaching and learning style
preferences and their match or mismatch on learners’ achievement among 310 English Major Students and four
lecturers from the Foreign Languages Faculty of Azad University, Iran. The results of the survey revealed that matching
teaching and learning styles in EFL classes can help improve students’ achievement.
Gündüz and Özcan (2010) conducted a study to examine the learning styles of Arabic, Turkish and Cypriot university
students studying at Near East University in Nicosia, TRNC, enrolled in the Engineering and Educational Sciences
Department. This study discusses the influence of culture, gender, native language and department on learning styles.
The sampling of the research consisted of 450 students studying at NEU. 150 of the participants were Turkish, 150 of
them were Cypriot, and 150 of them were Arabic. The sampling consisted of 300 male and 150 female students.
The findings indicated that Cypriot students learn more reflectively then Turkish and Arabic students in terms of active
reflective learning style. Turkish and Arabic students tend to learn more actively. Also, in terms of sensitive and
intuitive learning, Turkish students are seemed to learn more intuitively than Arabic and Cypriot students. Arabic and
Cypriot students tend to learn more sensing. Moreover, in terms of visual and verbal learning, there is not a big
difference among all students. They all learn verbally. Furthermore, in terms of sequential and global learning, although
there is not a big difference among the students, Turkish students seem to learn more sequentially than Cypriot and
Arabic students tending to learn more globally.
Dincol, Temel, Oskay, Erdogan, Yilmaz (2011) examined the matching between the learning styles of instructors and
teacher candidates and between the teaching styles of instructors and learning styles of teacher candidates among 68
teachers and 3 instructors from Hacettepe University, Faculty of Education, Department of Science and Mathematics
Education. The researchers applied Grasha-Riechmann Learning Style Scale. According to the findings, matching
learning styles of instructors with that of teacher candidates and matching teaching styles of teachers with the learning
styles of the teacher candidates has not significant effect on the success of the teacher candidates.
Gilakjani (2012) investigated the match and mismatch between learning styles of the learners and teaching styles of the
teachers among 100 Iranian students of English majoring in translation at the Islamic Azad University of Lahijan, Iran.
According to the results, it was shown that visual and auditory learning style preferences were preferred as major
learning styles, and the kinesthetic learning mode preference was reported as minor.
The purpose of this study is to explore the Yemeni science students’ learning styles, lecturers’ teaching styles, and to
find if there is a match or mismatch between learning and teaching styles among Yemeni undergraduate students and
their lecturers.

3. Methods
3.1 Participants
The participants of this study were second and fourth Biology science students (179) and the lecturers (50) at the
Faculty of Science, Sana’a University, Yemen. The major reason for choosing the sample from the University of
4
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No. 3 March 2014

Sana’a is that, it is the main university in the Republic of Yemen which is situated in the capital city of the country. The
second and fourth biology science group students comprised of 51 males and 128 females from the biology division.
The biology science lecturers consisted of 29 males and 21 females with ages ranging between 24-60 years old.
3.2 Instrument
The four instruments used in this study comprise the questionnaire and the observation checklist. This questionnaire
contains the background information of Biology science students’ profile that indicated their age categories, and gender.
This questionnaire was partially guided and adopted from Reid, 1995. The questionnaire contains of 30 statements
cover Reid’s six learning style preferences: visual, auditory group, kinesthetic, tactile and individual. Students were
invited to indicate their preferences of learning style on a five–point scale such as SA – Strongly Agree (5), A – Agree
(4), UND – Undecided (3), D – Disagree (2), SD – Strongly Disagree (1), µ– Mean and σ – Standard Deviation to
obtain the percentage to answer the question what is/are the science students learning styles preferences. Data on
teaching styles was collected using Peacock’s (2001) modified version of the Perceptual Learning Style Preferences
Questionnaire (PLSPQ) by Reid (1995) (Appendix B). It contains of 12 statements cover Reid’s six learning style
preferences: visual, auditory group, kinesthetic, tactile and individual. Lecturers were invited to indicate their
preferences of learning style on a five–point scale such as always /often/sometimes/rarely /never, do µ–Mean and σ –
Standard Deviation to obtain the percentage and o answer the question what is/are the preferred science lecturers’
teaching styles?
A classroom observation checklist was used during the observation process and was designed to account for all the
necessary and very much related aspects of the present study. There were thirteen main categories in the observation
checklist. These categories comprise the integration of the science classroom, science class lesson, students’ attitudes
towards learning science, lecturers’ attitudes towards teaching science and science lesson atmosphere. The observation
checklist was prepared by the researcher based on the requirements of the questionnaire.
3.3 Data Collection Procedures
Data collection was done in a period of one month at the Faculty of Science, Sana’a University, Yemen. The Perceptual
Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) was filled by the students in 30 minutes. The modified version of
PLSPQ was filled by the lecturers in 20 minutes. One of the researchers had observed the lecturers in the science
students’ classrooms and science students’ labs using the observation checklist as a non-participant observer. In
addition, probing questions were asked with the intention to explore in-depth experiences of the informant. As for the
observation, one of the researchers observed the students and lecturers by employing the observation checklist in two
Biology science labs and six Biology classrooms as a non-participant observer.
3.4 Data Analysis Procedures
The information obtained from the questionnaire were coded and analyzed using the SPSS program (version 16) to
accomplish descriptive analysis such as means (µ), and standard deviation (σ). Data were also analyzed from the science
students’ classroom observation checklist. Details and points of the observation checklist that were marked as
“satisfactory” or “outstanding” were analyzed and interpreted, coded and were presented in table. Field notes and
videotaped were used to triangulate the research findings.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Learning styles:

This section presents the research results of the descriptive statistics. In order to discover the types of perceptual
learning styles of Yemeni students and lecturers, the descriptive statistic (means and standard deviations) of the six
distinct categories were computed. The general tendency of the distribution showed that of 179 students, the Kinesthetic
learning style preference ranked first (M=4.3128), followed by Tactile learning (M=4.1508), group (M=3.9587),
individual learning (M=3.6257), while the responses to auditory learning (M=2.7743) and visual learning (M=2.5765)
had the lowest means scores (see Table 1).

5
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

Table 1: Student (n=179) learning style preferences

Rank Learning styles Mean Std.
Deviation
1 Kinesthetic 4.3128 .51538
2 Tactile 4.1508 .48787
3 Group 3.9587 .69821
4 Individual 3.6257 .78898
5 Auditory 2.7743 .91775
6 Visual 2.5765 1.09878

Figure 1: Students’ learning style preference

4.2 Teaching styles:

The general tendency of the distribution showed that of 50 lecturers, the visual teaching style preference ranked first
(M=4.0600), followed by auditory teaching (M=3.9100), group (M=2.8600), kinesthetic teaching (M=2.1700), while
the responses to tactile teaching (M=2.1500) and individual teaching (M=2.0000) had the lowest means scores (See
Table 2).
Table 1: Teacher (n=50) teaching style preferences

Rank Teaching styles Mean Std.

Deviation
1 Visual 4.0600 .68987
2 Auditory 3.9100 .84931
3 Group 2.8600 .77618
4 Kinesthetic 2.1700 .60280
5 Tactile 2.1500 .69437
6 Individual 2.0000 .76265

6
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No. 3 March 2014

Figure 2: Lecturers’ teaching style preference

The findings indicated that the learning styles most preferred by students were: the kinesthetic, tactile, and group
learning styles; followed by the auditory and visual modes of learning. Students in this study expressed the least
preference for the individual learning style. The findings also showed that the teaching styles most preferred by
lecturers were: visual, auditory, and group teaching styles; followed by the kinesthetic teaching styles. Lecturers in this
study showed the least preference for the tactile and individual teaching styles. There was therefore a mismatch
between learning and teaching styles regarding kinesthetic, tactile, auditory and visual. There was a match between
learning and teaching styles regarding group and individual.
The first mismatch between learning styles and teaching styles was “kinesthetic”. This mismatch occurs when students
favored kinesthetic style and disfavored by the lecturers. As a result, the higher level thinking and problem solving in
lecturers’ teaching is limited. Also, the range of skills that students are exposed to is limited to lecture methods such as
to note down every word of the lecture to faithfully, then, need to reproduce it in the examinations. Consequently, all
these are not adequate to fulfill the needs of science academic literacy skills and practices which require creative and
critical types of thinking skills as well as the ability to read and interpret graphs, scientific visuals, tables, tactile and
kinesthetic learning styles (role play, chanting, experiments and models, manipulative, and classroom activities (Dill
2009). There is a very little emphasis on the development of a full range of science abilities that makes use of and are
taught in the first language (Arabic language).
Results revealed a mismatch between students’ learning and lecturers’ teaching styles regarding “tactile”. The tactile
learning style implies that the learners' use problem-solving activities, role-play, drama (working in small groups) and
encouragement for active participation. This suggested that science students like and enjoy active participation, working
with materials by hand, problem-solving activities, and role-play. When compared to the lecturers’ responses it shows a
negative reaction towards this teaching style. This preferred teaching style indicated the lowest positive inclination
towards a tactile way of teaching. Based on the researcher’s observation, it is showed that kinesthetic and tactile styles
have been neglected in science teaching such as role-play and handling materials or taking notes. It is suggested that
kinesthetic, tactile and group teaching styles are very important styles for science students because there are lots of
opportunities for students in a group as they move around and manipulate materials to identify concepts and build
physical relationships. Moreover, the tactile learning style is considered to be one of the best styles of learning science,
apart from the “hands on” activity, the activities assist in the retention of facts, findings and concepts (Dill, 2009).
Hence, to resolve lecturers-students’ style conflicts is not an easy situation. However, from the literature review, the
data have implied that culture has an influence on learning style as stated by Mertifield (1996:10). Science lecturers
should consider culture-related style differences as they plan how to teach, and make a concerted effort to include

7
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

various learning styles in their daily lesson plans. Minimizing the perceived mismatch between lecturers’ intentions and
learners’ interpretations will facilitate the chances of attaining the desired learning outcomes (Xiao, 2006).
Results revealed also a mismatch between students’ learning and lecturers’ teaching styles regarding “auditory”. The
auditory learning style is ranked as the fifth in the overall list of students’ preferred learning style categories (Figure 1).
Contrary to that, the auditory teaching style is ranked as the second in the overall list of lecturers’ preferred teaching
style categories (Figure 2). This is indicated that lecturers responded in Table 2 that they believe as by giving oral
instructions because their learners will understand things better. Science lecturers like to give oral instructions and tell
things verbally to their learners. On the other hand, the researchers observed that the lecturer did not change from one
mode to another, where he could have created a participating and motivating environment. What is found is just an oral
explanation, discussions, reading handouts and lastly the whiteboard merely. Based on the observation, the lecturer-
centered approach of teaching is the prevalent in science classes. It implies that the lecturers are the autocratic figure,
and rarely had discussions happened between lecturers and students. Scholars such as (Mahyoub, 1996; Badran, 2003)
have confirmed that teachers of science were still using chalk- and-talk and considered this approach a good method of
science learning and teaching.
Furthermore, visual learning style is disfavoured by students and favoured by lecturers. Which show a mismatch
between students’ learning and lecturers’ teaching styles regarding “visual”. The visual learning style is ranked sixth in
the overall list of students’ preferred learning style categories (Figure 1). When compared to the lecturers teaching
style, visual teaching style is ranked first in the overall list of lecturers’ preferred teaching style categories as can be
seen in Figure 2. Based on the observation, teaching science at the Science Faculty depends more on the lecturers and
neglect the role of the students in the classroom which lead to lack of the active learning and verbal interaction between
the students and lecturers in the science classroom. However, the findings found a mismatch between the lecturers’
preferred traditional approach in teaching (lecturer-centered and visual and auditory type of learning) and the students’
preference towards other types of teaching and learning approaches at the faculty, such as inquiry learning, that requires
kinesthetic and tactile style of learning (Dill, 2009).
Thus, this showed a mismatch towards the learning of science that requires more than just memorization and rote
learning, but dwell in the realms of scientific inquiry learning and science learning standards. Consequently then, this
mismatch results in the science students to be powerless recipients. From the findings students perceive what is given by
the lecturer as perfect, although at times the information they receive from the lecturer is too trivial. Nevertheless, they
are satisfied with it as since these students are not trained in searching and exploring information. This finding appears
to be consistent with what Felder and Silverman (1988) have observed regarding the existence of mismatch between the
students’ learning styles and lecturers’ teaching styles. Felder and Silverman (1988) noted that there is an exist
mismatches between the learning styles of most students in a class and the teaching style of the lecturers, the students
may become bored and inattentive in class.
On the other hand of the coin, there was a match between learning and teaching styles regarding group and individual.
Results show a match between students’ learning and lecturers’ teaching styles regarding “group”. Group learning style
is ranked the third in the overall list of students’ preferred learning style and lecturers’ preferred teaching style
categories (Figure 1). This is also reinforce from the classroom observation; where science students depicted that they
found group learning style enjoyable, learned best, and got more work done when they worked with others. The
phenomenon of enjoying working in groups can be explained by collectivism. Group learning style is part of Arab
culture where Arab people practiced collectivism. ‘Collectivism’ versus ‘Individualism’ is one of the values conflicts
that can be found among Arabs (Hill et al., 1998). In a society in which group cohesiveness is thought to be essential,
as we have in Yemen, students are supposed to de-emphasize self and to be concerned about the group. This then is not
a surprising result as the Yemeni students are taught to have socially acceptable behaviour without “acting out” or
“speaking out”, group success rather than individual performance, which is rewarded more in this society. These
findings also related to the study done by Hofstede (1980), as he stated that Arab world is a collectivistic society as
compared to western world that practiced individualistic culture. This is due to the Islamic values and norms which give
emphasis on cooperation and unity among people.
Similarly, the results indicate that students’ learning style match with lecturers’ teaching styles regarding “individual”.
Many of the students indicated that they do not wish to study alone and there lecturers demonstrate a very negative
response towards students learning individually. It depicted that the lecturers indicated that they believe that their
students will understand better when they have their learners work alone in class and that their pupils will work better in
class when they work alone. The findings revealed that the science lecturers do not prefer their students to work alone

8
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No. 3 March 2014

for they learn better that way as aligned as to what Hofstede (1980) stated that Arab society is a collectivist society as
opposed to being an individualistic society.

6. Conclusions
This study tends to investigate the students’ learning style and the lecturers’ teaching style and whether the lecturers’
teaching style matches or mismatch with the students’ learning styles. In reference to the students’ learning styles, the
findings revealed that the students preferred more tactile and kinesthetic learning styles; followed by group style,
individual style, auditory style, visual style. Lecturers preferred the visual and auditory teaching styles, followed by
group style, kinesthetic, tactile style, and individual teaching styles. The lecturers do not prefer the kinesthetic and
tactile lecturers’ style. Hence, the mismatch occurred because the kinesthetic and tactile learning styles between
lecturers and students do not fit. Obviously, the findings revealed that lecturers did not include kinesthetic and tactile
styles, higher level thinking, and problem solving in their teaching. Thus, the findings revealed that there is a difference
between the learning style and teaching styles. This finding is consistent with the study done by Felder and Silverman
(1988) who indicated that learning styles of most engineering students and teaching styles of most engineering
professors are incompatible in several dimensions ; most engineering education is auditory, abstract (intuitive),
deductive, passive, and sequential.
The findings of the study can be used as a beginning point for collaboration with both science instructors and syllabus
designers at Sana’a University. Lecturers of the Faculty of Science should accommodate teaching to learning styles to
improve the results of the students’ learning and increase their motivation in their studies. The lecturers should have a
balanced teaching style and adapt activities such as role-playing to cater to students’ learning styles. It is helpful to
design class tasks and activities in which students can utilize their different learning styles. This will definitely motivate
almost all, if not all, students to participate in class and become engaged with the real learning.
This is hoped to improve the standard of teaching and learning of science, resulting in well-educated science graduates
who will be able to make significant contributions to the development of Yemen’s education. Finally, the researcher
agrees with the Peacock’s suggestion (2001) that the writers and selections of teaching science materials and syllabuses
always remember the need to accommodate a variety of learning and teaching. She also agrees with willingness’s
suggestion (1988) that increased awareness of styles should be part of lecturer training, development, and assessment.

References
Artvinli, E. (2010).Cografya ögretmenlerinin ögretme stilleri. Elektronic. Journal of Social Sciences, 9(33), 387- 408.

Aguirre L. E., Cancino, M. & Neira, L. (2005). Dinamización de los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje de las lenguas
extranjeras a partir de los estilos de aprendizaje. Retrieved May 12, 2012, http://www.tareas.wikiole.com.

Al-Quyadi, Ahamed Abdul-Rahmen. (2000). Psycho-sociological variables in the learning of English in Yemen: a case
study of the English specialists in the faculties of education in Sana’a University. Unpublished Ph.D thesis.
Hyderabad, University of Hyderabad.

Angela Abu-Asba, Hazita Azman, Rosniah Mustaffa, (2012) Learning styles of Yemeni undergraduate science
students. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 12 (2), 571-591.

Badran, A. 2003. The Status of Science Teaching in the Gulf Countries. In UNESCO. (Eds.). Connect International
Science, Technology & environmental education newsletter, XXXIII (3-4),1-6.

Castillo, D. D. 2004. The Arab World’s Scientific Desert: Once a leader in research, the region now struggles to keep
up. Retrieved August 5, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i26/26a03601.htm

9
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the Language classroom. In B. Harrison (Eds.), Culture
and the language classroom, ELT Documents 132 (pp. 54-65). London: Modem English Publications/British
Council.

Dill, M. (2009). Students learning styles: Make learning Active for tactile learners Retrieved March 13, 2013, from
http://www.brighthub.com/education/special/articles/16779.aspx#ixzz0iPg2G7pS.

Dinçola, S., Temel, S.,Oskay, Ö. Ö., Erdogan, Ü.I. and Yilmaze. A. (2011). The effect of matching learning styles with
teaching styles on Success. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 854–858.

Dunn, R., & Dunn K. (1993). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they…can they…be matched? Educational
Leadership, 36, 238-244.

Ehrman, M.E. (1996). Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engr. Educ 78 (7),
674-681. Retrieved July 2, 2010, from
http://scienceblogs.com/digitalbio/2007/03/learning_styles_and_science_la.php

Felder, R.M. (1993). Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education. J. College
Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290.

Felder, R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals,
28(1), 21-31.

Felder, R., Felder, G., & Dietz, E. J. (2002). The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and
attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.

Felder. R.M., and Spurlin J.E. (2005). Applications, Reliability, and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles. Journal
of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of minds: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gringerenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking styles. In D. H. Saklofske, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International
Handbook of Personality & Intelligence. (pp. 205-230). NY: Plenum Press.

Gilakjani, A. P.(2012). A Match or Mismatch Between Learning Styles of the Learners and Teaching Styles of the
Teachers. I.J.Modern Education and Computer Science, 11, 51-60.

Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: a practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and
learning styles. San Bernardino, CA: Alliance Publishers.

Grasha, A. F. (2002). The dynamics of one-on-one teaching. College Teaching, 50(4), 139-146.

Guadalupe, M., Castaneda,G., Juris, M.S.F. (2007). Teaching and Learning Crossroads. Zona proxima N, 8,78-93.
10
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No. 3 March 2014

Gündüz, N. & Özcan, D. (2010). Learning styles of students from different cultures and studying in
Near East University. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 5–10.

Haidar, A. H.(2002). A non-western culture and a western science education wave. In Haidar, A.H. (Eds). Emirates
secondary school science lecturers’ perspectives on the nexus between modern science and Arab culture.
International Journal of Science education, 24(6), 611-626.

Hill, C., Loch, K., Straub, D. & El-Sheshai,K.(1998). A Qualitative Assessment of Arab Culture and Information
Technology Transfer. Journal of Global Information Management, 29-38.

Hofstede. G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: international Differences in Work- Related Values. Beverly Hills CA:
Sage Publications.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

Hsieh, S.W., Jang,Y.R., Hwang, G.J., and Chen, N.S. (2011). Effects of teaching and learning styles on students’
reflection levels for ubiquitous Learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1194–1201.

Kang, S. (1999). Learning Styles: Implications for ESL/EFL instruction. Forum, 37 (4), Retrieved April 6, 2005, from
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no4/p6.htm

Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners in ESL classrooms. In J.M. Reid (Ed.), learning
styles in the ESUEFL classroom. (pp. 52-61). Boston: Heinle and Heinle,

Kinsella, K. (1996). Designing group work that supports and enhances diverse classroom work styles. TESOL Journals,
6(1), 24-31.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:
Prentice-Hall.

Kroonenberg, N. (1995). Meeting language learners' sensory-learningstyle preferences. In J.M. Reid (Ed.), learning
styles in the ESUEFL classroom. (pp. 74-86). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Kuchinskas, G. (1979). Whose cognitive style makes the difference? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 269-271.

Jones, N.B. (1997). Applying learning styles research to improve writing instruction. RELC Seminar on Learners and
Language Learning, Singapore, April 1997.

Juris, M. F., Ramos, V.V. & Castaneda, M. G.G. (2009). Learning and Teaching Crossroads. Institute for Learning
Style Journal, 1, 1-19.

Littlewood, W., Liu, N-F. & Yu, C. (1996). Hong Kong tertiary students' attitudes and proficiency in spoken English.
RELC Journal, 27(1), 70-88.

11
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

Mattews, D. B. (1991). The effects of learning styles on grades of first-year college students. Research in Higher
Education, 32(3), 253-268.

Mahyoub, A. A. (1996). Approaches to study process and university classroom environment: the case of pre-service
science lecturers at the college of education in Sana’a University. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Pennsylvania:
University of Pittsburgh.

Melton, C. D. (1990). Bridging the Cultural Gap: A study of Chinese students' learning style preferences. RELC
Journal, 21 (1), 29-54.

Merrifield, J. (1996). Examining the language learning strategies used by French adult learners. Birmingham, UK:
Aston.

Murray-Harvey, R. (1994). Learning styles and approaches to learning: Distinguishing between concepts and
instruments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(3), 373-388.

Naimiea, Z., Sirajb, S., Piawc, C.Y., Shagholid, R., and Abuzaid,R.A. (2010). Do you think your match is made in
heaven? Teaching styles/learning styles match and mismatch revisited. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2, 349–353.

Nour, S. S. (2003). Science and Technology (S &T) development indicators in the Arab region: A comparative study of
Arab Gulf and Mediterranean countries. Paper presented at the ERF 10th Annual Conference, Morocco16-18
December

Oxford, R., M. Ehrman, and R. Lavine. (1991). Style Wars: Lecturer-Student Style Conflicts in the Language
Classroom. In S. Magnan, (Eds.), Challenges in the 1990’s for College Foreign Language Programs. Boston:
Heinle and Heinle.

Oxford, R., (1992). Language learning style & strategies in the multicultural, tertiary L2 classroom. System, 20(4),
439-456.

Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1993). Second language research on individual differences. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13,188-205.

Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied
Linguistic, 11(1), 20.

Quiamzade, A. and Mugny, G. 2009. When teaching style matches students' epistemic (in) dependence: The moderating
effect of perceived epistemic gap. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIV(3), 361-37.

Rahimi, M. and Asadollahi, F.. 2012. On the relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ classroom management
orientations and teaching style. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 49 – 55

Raymond, E. (2000). Cognitive Characteristics: Learners with Mild Disabilities Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon, A Pearson Education Company.

Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categorization of cognitive styles & learning styles. Educational
Psychology, 17(1), 5-27.
12
 International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No. 3 March 2014

Rao, Z. H. (2006). Matching teaching styles with learning styles in East Asian contexts. In Xiao, L. (Eds.). Bridging
the Gap Between Teaching Styles and Learning Style: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Teaching English as a
Second or Foreign Language, 10(3), 1-17.

Razak, A. A. & Abdul Majeed, A. (1998) Islam: Science and Technology. Malaysia: Institute of Islamic Understanding
Malaysia.

Reid, J. (1984). Perceptual Learning-Style Preference Questionnaire. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from
http://lookingahead.heinle.com/filing/l-styles.htm

Reid, J. (1987). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly,1(21),87-111.

Reid, J. (1995). Learning Styles in the EFL/ESL Classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Reid, J. 1996. A learning styles unit for the intermediate ESL/EFL writing classroom. TESOL Journal Autumn, 7-42.

Riding, R., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style & mode of presentation on learning performance. British
journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297-307.

Segal, A. (1996). Why Does the Muslim World Lag in Science? The Middle East Forum, 3(2),1-8
http://www.meforum.org/article/306

Sims, R., & Sims, S. (1995). The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course
design and education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Tabatabaei, O., and Mashayekhi, S. (2013).The relationship between EFL l learning styles And their L2 achievement.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 245 – 253

Tobias, S . (1993). They're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tuscon: Research Corporation. In
Felder. R. (Eds). Reading the Second Tier: Learning and teaching styles in College Science Education, J.
College Science Teaching (pp. 286-290), 23(5) Retrieved from,
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Secondtier.html.

UNESCO International Science. (2003). Connect 3-4 (XXXIII),1-6. Retrieved from

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Learning_Styles.html.

Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide, Australia: NCRC/AMEP.

Woods. M. (2004). Islam, once at forefront of science, fell by wayside: For centuries, Arabic was the language of
science and medicine, as English is today. Retrieved June 5, 2010 from
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04102/299292.stm.

Xiao, L. (2006). Bridging the Gap Between Teaching Styles and Learning Style: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 10(3), 1-17.

13
 ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com

Zhang, L. F.2007. From career personality types to preferences for lecturers’ teaching styles: A new perspective on style
match. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,1863–1874.

Zhang, L. F. (2004b). Thinking styles: University students’ preferred teaching styles and their conceptions of effective
lecturers. The Journal of Psychology, 138(3), 233–252.

Zhenhu, R. (2001). Matching teaching styles for ESL/EFL instruction. The internet TESL Journal, 7 (3).

14